On 9/6/2019 11:04 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:


On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 12:54:42 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:



    On 9/6/2019 10:21 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:


    On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 12:14:07 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:



        On 9/6/2019 9:51 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
        >
        > I would put "Horganism" another way.
        >
        > Science tells stories/theories, and some are successful in
        their
        > application. But we don't know if any of the stories are
        the final
        > ones to be told, or even close to being final. (They
        probably are
        > not.) There is no settled story of gravity yet, much less
        > consciousness. One reads about a new story of gravity in
        science news
        > every week, it seems.
        >
        > David Chalmers' conclusion is ...
        >
        > "I think that the Hegelian [dialectical] argument gives
        good reason to
        > take both panpsychism and panprotopsychism very seriously.
        If we can
        > find a reasonable solution to the combination problem for
        either, this
        > view would immediately become the most promising solution
        to the
        > mind–body problem. So the combination problem deserves
        serious and
        > sustained attention."
        > - http://consc.net/papers/panpsychism.pdf
        <http://consc.net/papers/panpsychism.pdf>

        Zero predictive power and it's not clear that it's consistent
        with the
        rest of neurophysics.

        Brent




    Sean Carroll is on a nationwide speaking tour now evangelizing
    Many Worlds.

    What is the predictive power of Many Worlds?

    None, unless someone can figure out how to derive Born's rule from
    it...which I think is impossible.  But it does go a way toward
    making the story of measurement more consistent.

    Brent



Maybe. But the wider point is Sean Carroll's unlinking (strict) observability from science.

https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2018/01/17/beyond-falsifiability/

(which many have exploded over).

In Sean's world, if a vocabulary of unobservables fits into a scientific fabric somehow, then it's tenable. Maybe that's OK. Who knows.

I think the measurement problem ultimately needs a theory of consciousness to bottom out, and I think computationalism and the "engineering theory of consciousness" will fill that need.

Brent


@philipthrift

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f2ee1ec0-b78b-4364-b648-eb81596d4233%40googlegroups.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f2ee1ec0-b78b-4364-b648-eb81596d4233%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1469e2ab-628f-2304-6f38-585c3cd67e3a%40verizon.net.

Reply via email to